Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo

En mycket intressant intervju med Professor Emeritus Dr. Don J. Easterbrook (Geology, Western Washington University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology). Som säger att Global Warming är den största vetenskapliga skandalen sedan Galileo ställdes inför inkvisitionen.


”DJE: The strength of any assertion is only as strong as the foundation it’s built upon. This has no foundation. This assumes that CO2 drives the temperature increase. If it’s not, then this means absolutely nothing. You have to prove the basic tenet that CO2 drives temperature before this means anything at all.

You might as well be talking about the moon being made of green cheese. Until you go there and look at it and see what’s there, you can say whatever you want. If you look at the reality of what has happened in the past, which is what I do, and transfer that into the future, you don’t get this at all. It turns out that, again, time is on my side, because we’re getting closer and closer to my projection and farther and farther away from the IPCC’s. We’re diverging from this Lynas plot. They predict by 2050 we should be two degrees warmer than today. In three years they say we’ll be one degree warmer than today. Well, that’s not happening. This may be an unusually cold year, not necessarily typical of what we have to look forward to, for the simple reason this is a La Nina year, so it probably tacks on a little extra cooling, but the interesting thing is that we haven’t had this low a sunspot cycle since the Maunder Minimum. There are astrophysicists, Russian, Canadian, Willie Soon and other Americans who say ‘Look out’ because we haven’t seen this since the Little Ice Age, about 4 degrees colder than it is right now. That’s one scenario, a possibility.

Another possibility is that the coming cold period that I’ve projected will be more like the last one from 1945 to 1977, which was half a degree colder than now. Or, it might be more like the one from 1880 to 1910 which was deeper. We might be headed toward one of the deeper ones, like the turn of the last century, but there’s no evidence prove it, so we’ll have to wait until we get there to see. We have the possibility of another LIA, the last time we had so few sunspots. Or we have the possibility of a cooling spell like 1890, or one like we had between 1945 and 1977, which was mild. Or, we might have nothing at all. Or, we might have soaring temperatures. Of those options, I think we’ll have something deep like 1890. But, we don’t know and we’re not going to know until we get there.

The other thing, which is what the Manhattan and Bali Declarations are all about, is, when we get to 2050, the IPCC predicts two additional degrees of warmth, and the population will increased by up to three billion people. We’re projected to be nine billion by 2050. What are we going to do with three billion more people demanding resources? If there is a two degree temperature change, that will be a big problem. So, my view is that, the population explosion is a way bigger problem than a half a degree of temperature change. We need to get control of the population, and we’re not doing it.

By the time we get to 2050, we’ll have so many more demands for natural resources that, even if the two degree temperature change doesn’t happen, if we’re flat or cooler, we still have a really big problem. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on reducing carbon, which does nothing, we should prepare for the population that’s coming. My view has always been that we need to plan ahead. We may have a thirty year grace period when things cool off. If it’s only half a degree of cooling, we have breathing space to get ready for what’s coming. By my projection: we’ll be a half a degree warmer from about 2040 to 2070, but the population will be 50 percent bigger, so it’s going to be a way bigger problem than what we’re looking at today.

Forget about the CO2 trap. If you bet all of your resources, trillions of dollars, on stopping global warming by not putting carbon into the atmosphere, we lose when we get to 2050. In other words, it’s a consequential bet. You’ll hear the CO2 people saying ‘Well, just to be safe, we’ve got to do it this way’, but that’s not true because if you put all the money into curbing CO2 and you don’t do any of the other things necessary to get ready for increasing population, you have a bigger problem than global warming. That’s what the Manhattan Declaration is about. We need to get ready. We should reduce pollution-There are far more bad things going into the atmosphere via emissions than CO2-Sulfur compounds, all kinds of stuff. We ought to reduce those. On that, I’m on the same side of the coin as Al Gore.

Suppose that we totally stop CO2 emissions, take it not to the Kyoto limit but to zero. No heavy breathing. No cars. Would that stop global warming? Will that stop global warming? The answer is ‘No.‘ It takes five-hundred years or thereabouts for the atmosphere to equilibrate with the oceans. Even Hansen will admit that. There’s nothing we can do by stopping CO2 emissions that will affect climate in the next several hundred years. Nothing. We should bring emissions down, but not for that reason.”

”KLC: They’ll move the prediction around…

DJE: Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind is perfect. It’s like predicting the morning’s weather at six-o’clock in the evening.

KLC: They call it hind-casting. It’s clever. Use the same model, but reset the starting point each year.

DJE: They published their projection, so I’ll hold them to it.

KLC: They’re slippery. I look at it from an engineering standpoint and so much of it seems absurd. I don’t understand how they get away with it. Mass psychology and herd instinct?

DJE: Do you know what drives them? Money.

KLC: You’re talking about research grant money?

DJE: I’m talking about money, period. Before he started all this, Al Gore was reported to be worth a few million dollars. Now he is reported to be worth 100 million dollars and is reported to have a slush fund of about five billion dollars. If you’re in the press and you want to attend one of his lectures, you can’t. Not only can you not ask questions, they won’t let you in. Because the debate is over, you see. You’d just be a troublemaker. You know about the Bali-100? [A letter disputing the findings of the IPCC sent to the UN Secretary-General and signed by 100 scientists]”

”Doom and gloom is easy to sell. Herman Goebbels said in World War II, and said it right, that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will eventually believe it.

KLC: With regard to Al Gore’s comments, what is your response?

DJE: It reminds me of what went on with the Pope and Galileo. The Pope didn’t like the idea that the earth was round or that it went around the sun and that the earth was not the center of the universe. At that point the Pope declared that the debate was over and anybody that disagreed would get burned at the stake. Today is like that, total hogwash. Gore made a statement that less than a half-dozen people in world don’t believe that CO2 causes AGW. That’s totally nuts.”

”DJE: I arranged a global warming symposium along with the national meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver and we invited a half-dozen eminent scientists, all world-class people, to give papers with data to show what’s going on. The idea was to get away from the hype and look at the data and see what’s going on. When it was all over, one guy stood up and said ‘How dare you contradict Al Gore, don’t you know the debate is over?’ And another guy stood up and said ‘Why are you pointing out all of this data to cast doubt? You’re just going to confuse our students.’ Guilty!

Anytime you deal with dogma, where people say ‘shut up, you can’t argue anymore because we’re right and there’s nothing you can say that will change anything, therefore, you’re wrong’, attacking the dogma will invariably get you in trouble.”

”DJE: Treenometers? I like that. Al Gore makes the statement that if we go back far enough in time we see ups and downs in temperature and the CO2 goes up and down too, which is absolutely true, but what he didn’t tell you is, that the temperature change precedes the CO2 change by about 800 years. He makes it sound like the CO2 causes temperature changes, which is totally bogus. No geologist, no scientist I know, believes that. But, he’s still says it and won’t back off on any off it.”

”DJE: If I were hard-pressed to give my overall assessment of the whole Gore-phenomenon, I would say two things, A, that it’s an out-and-out hoax, and B, it is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo. There is so much dogma and pressure put on scientists. Gore has so little proof, it’s disgraceful to the scientific world.

KLC: I think it’s more than that. There is self-loathing, they believe that man’s works are inevitably bad, so they contort to prove that result.

DJE: Follow the money. It’s big bucks. We’re talking about billions of dollars. If we’re headed toward catastrophic global warming, we have to do all these things they want. It will prove to be the biggest boondoggle since the religious dogmas of Galileo’s time.”

Intervjun finns här:

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>


Etiketter: , , , , , , , ,

3 svar to “Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo”

  1. Patrick Meaney Says:


    I just wanted to say that the IPCC is the largest scientific body in the world, EVER.

    Largest scientific research commission that has ever been organized in the history of humanity.

    For one reason.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    See what is really happening, here:

    Also, if you stated your sources it would make your argument more credible, however the science has been resolved since 2001 and therefore there is no supported argument to make against climate change.

    • sophiaalbertina Says:

      Interesting comment,

      If you have no facts and arguments you can always try and play the “you have no sources” game. In all my posts you have plenty of sources and references. Including the one you are commenting on.

      But that presumes that you can read and are not blind.

      And no, the IPCC is NOT the “the largest scientific body in the world, EVER”

      It’s called InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change for a reason you know. And that reason is spelled politics and government bureaucrats meddling in “scientific” affairs. Driven by at political agenda that has nothing to do with facts, science or the environment.

      It is really sad to watch this Global Warming Hysterics religion for all of us that really care about the environment. And real problems that people are dying from here and now.

      And which the GLOBAL Warming crowd doesn’t seam to care less about. I mean it’s just people dying here and now.

      And if we just spent a fraction of these billions wasted on these nonsense matters we could easily fix them. Here and now. Se my post:

      Instead you want to curtail our freedom and ruin normal working peoples living standard for what useless computer models predict is going to happen in 100 years.

      The same computer models that can not predict the weather one month from now. Or “recreate” the weather that was one month ago.

      Taking about totally screwed priorities

      Not to talk about the flagrant censorship, bullying and smear against scientists and other people who dare to speak out against this unscientific Global Warming religion.

      Not to speak about the flagrant hypocrisy from the likes of Al Gore. Who goes around preaching gloom and doom. And frugality and sacrifices from the common people. Why at the same time continuing to live his own glamour’s, high enery lifestyle.

      This is more reminiscent of the middle ages and the inquisition than a “modern” society. Not to speak of science.

      And by the way, it was only 5 scientists who commented on ALL 11 chapters of AR4 WG1. Se my posts:

      You have also the very strange and unscientific way that ALL the scientific chapters HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL the Summary for Policymakers is published. So that the scientific chapters are “in tune” with this Summary for Policymakers SAYS.

      Why? Because this is the report that the politicians read. They don’t read the scientific papers and reports. And it is just 22 pages with lots of pictures and graphs. Which is just what they can mange.

      Just to mention a few very unscientific ways of this political body.

  2. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] are correct!,  How will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?,  Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo,  1000 år av temperaturdata från Nya Zeeland,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And […]


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: